US Air Strike Kills 85 Civilians

[Hooahguy]

Why is that hard to believe? The Syrian army was quite considerable in strength, especially when you factor in air power, which the rebels had almost none. And for what its worth, the group Physicians forHuman Rights claims that the vast majority of attacks on doctors and hospitals were by the regime (over 90%) but who knows really. I havent been able to find a hard breakdown of who is killing who so I suppose you are going to believe one thing and Ill believe another. Personally, I think both sides are complicit in the deaths of civilians in this conflict. I just happen to think that the regime's use of air power tips the balance in his favor. Also the whole gas attack thing doesnt paint a pretty picture either.

[Pannonian]

Why is that hard to believe? The Syrian army was quite considerable in strength, especially when you factor in air power, which the rebels had almost none. And for what its worth, the group Physicians forHuman Rights claims that the vast majority of attacks on doctors and hospitals were by the regime (over 90%) but who knows really. I havent been able to find a hard breakdown of who is killing who so I suppose you are going to believe one thing and Ill believe another. Personally, I think both sides are complicit in the deaths of civilians in this conflict. I just happen to think that the regime's use of air power tips the balance in his favor. Also the whole gas attack thing doesnt paint a pretty picture either.

You're missing the most important bit.

Basically what I'm getting from SFTS and Seamus is that the people they're defending dropped a chandelier on a dancefloor full of people at a party they werent invited to. Is the presence itself of these forces and the lackluster coordination with the sovereign entity to bring justice to these bands not unconventional? And how w does that answer my question about why the US isnt better off letting SAR do their jobs?

No. Though its hard to believe that countless gangs with nato funds have done less damage than a figure like Assad, who transformed himself to some sort of benign figure to cling to whatever he has left. Its not working at all because of neoliberal idealists of course.

We weren't invited to the party. So whatever happens at the party, we shouldn't be there in the first place. If we weren't there, then the party floor dancers can brawl as much as they like. It would result in way more casualties. But the key point isn't the casualties. The key point is our presence at a party we weren't invited to.

[Papewaio]

We weren't invited to the party. So whatever happens at the party, we shouldn't be there in the first place. If we weren't there, then the party floor dancers can brawl as much as they like. It would result in way more casualties. But the key point isn't the casualties. The key point is our presence at a party we weren't invited to.

Well this party had the equivalent of a public Facebook invite to it when the belligerents started bombing people outside the region.

If you don't want to invite the cops best to keep a low profile and not go waking them up in the dead of night.

[AE Bravo]

Why is that hard to believe? The Syrian army was quite considerable in strength, especially when you factor in air power, which the rebels had almost none. And for what its worth, the group Physicians forHuman Rights claims that the vast majority of attacks on doctors and hospitals were by the regime (over 90%) but who knows really. I havent been able to find a hard breakdown of who is killing who so I suppose you are going to believe one thing and Ill believe another. Personally, I think both sides are complicit in the deaths of civilians in this conflict. I just happen to think that the regime's use of air power tips the balance in his favor. Also the whole gas attack thing doesnt paint a pretty picture either.

If there was political or security cooperation with that government more of this information would have been known to us. especially with these various rebel groups having a history of spreading misinformation like the many offsprings of the Muslim Brotherhood. I don't doubt all slides exaggerate reports. One reason it’s hard to believe is if you look at life in Damascus and the more demanding lifestyle in rebel-occupied territories. Many sources claim the gas attack was carried out by a dissident, and is possible considering it’s the dumbest thing the government could have done to undermine its legitimacy.

We weren't invited to the party. So whatever happens at the party, we shouldn't be there in the first place. If we weren't there, then the party floor dancers can brawl as much as they like. It would result in way more casualties. But the key point isn't the casualties. The key point is our presence at a party we weren't invited to.

There would not have been more casualties. You'd know that if you started talking to people and learn something instead of talking at them.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If there was political or security cooperation with that government more of this information would have been known to us. especially with these various rebel groups having a history of spreading misinformation like the many offsprings of the Muslim Brotherhood. I don't doubt all slides exaggerate reports. One reason it’s hard to believe is if you look at life in Damascus and the more demanding lifestyle in rebel-occupied territories. Many sources claim the gas attack was carried out by a dissident, and is possible considering it’s the dumbest thing the government could have done to undermine its legitimacy.

There would not have been more casualties. You'd know that if you started talking to people and learn something instead of talking at them.

A number of points to understand about the Western Mindset on Syria.

1. Assad bombs his own people (Civilians) and therefore his government is Tyrannical. In Western thought there is a moral obligation to overthrow Tyrants, even Tyrannical Kings ordained by God.

2. Many have said that we should have intervened in syria earlier, particularly to destroy Assad's ability to cripple his own country's infrastructure. We should have destroyed his Air Power.

3. Against this other have said we should just leave the Syrians to it, even if we can reduce casualties we are morally obliged NOT to help a people overthrow their Tyrant, they have to do it themselves. The debate between this and point 1 is at least as old the sons of the Athenian Tyrant Peisistratos, i.e 6th century BC.

4. There is a strong argument that, having intervened in Libya, we undermined the good we had done there by refusing to support the initially peaceful Syrian uprising with practical military intervention (a No-Fly Zone) undermined the Arab belief in Western Goodwill. In the face of apparent Western "betrayal" Arabs once again concluded it was "all about oil". This weakened the faction we had supported in Libya and helped ignite a new Civil War there.

At the bottom of all of this is the Western Belief in the superiority of our Constitutional arrangements and our form of government - essentially it's a belief in our cultural superiority based on hard practical observation.

[Greyblades]

I have found myself questioning if our constitutional arrangments and forms of government is even transferable to those without a specific historical and cultural imperitive to maintain it.

Can democracy really be sustained by a people lacking at least some history of self instigated revolution?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

We intervened without hesitation in Libya and the place is now a dump, its people crossing over to Europe by the literal boatload. I've come to the conclusion that Muslim countries tend towards Islamism. Any liberal democracy will only be temporary before Islamism reasserts itself. Dictatorship is the longest lasting barrier to Islamism.

I have found myself questioning if our constitutional arrangments and forms of government is even transferable to those without a specific historical and cultural imperitive to maintain it.

Can democracy really be sustained by a people lacking at least some history of self instigated revolution?

It can be argued, and we'll never know, that things would be even worse in Libya if we had not intervened and they'd be better is we'd intervened under the same circumstances in Syria. Muslims will never accept the merits of democracy so long as they see democratically run counties in Europe and the Anglosphere acting in a way they consider two-faced and mercenary.

If we want to spread democracy we have to commit to it - if we don't we might as well do what Israel does and bombs any country to pieces if it looks at us funny.

As soon as a word is borrowed from one language to another it starts to assimilate in spelling, morphology, pronunciation and meaning. It may go all the way in all aspects or only in one of them. Since the word in question is an English word, it is useless to refer to Spanish any more. So IN ENGLISH guerilla and gorilla are homophones thus pronounced identically.

You're right about the way it's pronounced, it's pretentious to try to pronounce is in a Spanish accent unless you actually speak fluent Spanish.

They aren't exactly homophone though because guerrilla and gorilla are pronounced with different vowel sounds in the syllable.

[Gilrandir]

They aren't exactly homophone though because guerrilla and gorilla are pronounced with different vowel sounds in the syllable.

Pronunciation (and transcription) of both:
http://nordmine.ru/dic/guerilla

http://wooordhunt.ru/word/gorilla

They ARE homophones. If you mean the first syllable: almost any unstressed vowel in English either becomes a schwa or an /i/. In both words in question it is schwa.

[Husar]

Pronunciation (and transcription) of both:
http://nordmine.ru/dic/guerilla

http://wooordhunt.ru/word/gorilla

They ARE homophones. If you mean the first syllable: almost any unstressed vowel in English either becomes a schwa or an /i/. In both words in question it is schwa.

Heresy!

In German we also call the Belgian city of Liège Lüttich, even though it's not hard to say Liège.
This could all have been solved with Esperanto, or was it Espresso?...

[Pannonian]

A number of points to understand about the Western Mindset on Syria.

1. Assad bombs his own people (Civilians) and therefore his government is Tyrannical. In Western thought there is a moral obligation to overthrow Tyrants, even Tyrannical Kings ordained by God.

2. Many have said that we should have intervened in syria earlier, particularly to destroy Assad's ability to cripple his own country's infrastructure. We should have destroyed his Air Power.

3. Against this other have said we should just leave the Syrians to it, even if we can reduce casualties we are morally obliged NOT to help a people overthrow their Tyrant, they have to do it themselves. The debate between this and point 1 is at least as old the sons of the Athenian Tyrant Peisistratos, i.e 6th century BC.

4. There is a strong argument that, having intervened in Libya, we undermined the good we had done there by refusing to support the initially peaceful Syrian uprising with practical military intervention (a No-Fly Zone) undermined the Arab belief in Western Goodwill. In the face of apparent Western "betrayal" Arabs once again concluded it was "all about oil". This weakened the faction we had supported in Libya and helped ignite a new Civil War there.

At the bottom of all of this is the Western Belief in the superiority of our Constitutional arrangements and our form of government - essentially it's a belief in our cultural superiority based on hard practical observation.

We intervened without hesitation in Libya and the place is now a dump, its people crossing over to Europe by the literal boatload. I've come to the conclusion that Muslim countries tend towards Islamism. Any liberal democracy will only be temporary before Islamism reasserts itself. Dictatorship is the longest lasting barrier to Islamism.